• Will Private Spacecraft Have The Right Stuff?
    21 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]Commercial orbital taxis won’t have to retrace NASA’s footsteps[/B] NEWS ANALYSIS [I]By James Oberg NBC News space analyst updated 2:35 p.m. ET, Wed., April 21, 2010 HOUSTON - The White House's policy for future spaceflight relies on a crucial unknown: Can private companies build and operate space vehicles safe enough to carry astronauts?[/I] Many veteran engineers from NASA are skeptical about the idea that less experienced teams with fewer resources could possibly replicate the space agency's success at developing spacecraft to carry humans — ranging from the Mercury and Gemini capsules to the Apollo command module and the space shuttle. But the task may be far less daunting than the skeptics think. This is because the "goal posts" in human spaceflight have shifted over the decades, and the required know-how has spread even as the general level of aerospace engineering capabilities has risen. The commercial space shippers of the 2010s will not be recapitulating the research, development and designs of the 1960s. First of all, the space taxis being created to serve the new policy are being designed for an entirely different mission. Unlike America's previous spaceships, these new taxis will be focused only on delivering passengers from Earth’s surface to an existing space facility and back again. There’s no need for long periods of independent orbital cruising. There’s no need for carrying equipment to be later used for moon flights. The plan to reshape the Orion spaceship as a standby rescue vehicle for station crews has profound implications for the requirements of the commercial taxi and its cost. This strategy means the taxis won't have to last for six months "parked" in space, like Russia's Soyuz spaceships. The simplification of the taxi’s mission will allow its hardware to be significantly less expensive to build and to validate. The crucial systems for the taxis have mostly already been built and are available as off-the-shelf technology — which means the spaceships could be much cheaper, much smaller and much more reliable. [B]Fewer bells and whistles[/B] The NASA vehicles for human spaceflight have been complex because they needed to perform a wide array of complex missions. However, when it comes to building a vehicle aimed at one and only one specific type of mission, a lot of routine equipment becomes superfluous. Imagine a vehicle designed to dock with a space station within 24 hours. Its maximum emergency flight time would be no more than 48 hours. What kinds of equipment would it need? Here are some suggestions: - Electrical power? Batteries are fine — recharge when you reach the station, or if you can’t, land immediately. No solar panels, no fuel cells, nothing complex or exotic. - Navigation? Big radar dishes, even complex transponders, are unnecessary, with differential GPS navigation now the baseline for most flying all over the planet. - Spacewalking? No need, so no airlock, either. At most, the crew would wear in-cabin pressure suits such as those used on Soyuz missions. - Passenger accommodations? Room for each passenger in a foldaway seat, and space to turn around if desired would be more than adequate for the short flight. No exercise equipment would be needed. No DVD library. - Hygiene? A maximum of 24 hours of independent flight suggests a minimum -toilet (or just Apollo-era plastic bags with sticky openings). Or low-residue pre-launch diets, and diapers. - Passenger comforts? None. Forget hot food and a complex galley. Box lunches will do. Forget even windows, except for the pilot’s view forward at docking. There need only be minimal carry-on luggage — a take-aboard allowance that would make today’s commercial airlines seem generous. - Bulky docking hardware? These mechanically robust components are often a significant fraction of a spaceship’s weight, but the space station can also now grapple a nearby vehicle and emplace it gently on the desired berthing interface. All of these items have been critical to the successes of some previous astronaut missions, but if they can be done without, they need to be scrubbed out. NASA would never build a spacecraft this spartan. But NASA has never designed a spacecraft purely for the space taxi role. NASA has never designed any sort of taxi for use anywhere. That may explain why the Apollo and Orion vehicles built by NASA for crew transport missions weigh in at the 40,000-pound level and higher, while simpler spacecraft from Russia and China are less than half as massive. Using new structural materials and leaving out fancy extras, some designers suspect that a bare-bones space taxi for four people would more likely weigh in the range of 10,000 pounds, allowing the use of medium-class boosters already in service. [B]Solving the hard problems[/B] Providing the sophisticiated critical systems for space taxis will involve significant engineering challenges. But here too, the modern equivalents of mail-order catalogs are available to the taxi designers. The two most critical technologies are escape systems for launch and thermal protection for entry. They're not yet in the Edmund Scientific catalog or on eBay, but almost. These technologies are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Fortunately, the problems associated with their development are already being solved, and those solutions would be available as government-furnished equipment ("GFE," in the contractor term). They would not need to be solved again from scratch. Orion's launch abort system is scheduled to be flight-tested next month at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Designed to make the Orion 10 times safer than earlier U.S. spaceships, the tower mounts to the nose of a crew-carrying capsule and hooks into an emergency activation system in that spaceship. The system can also be activated via ground commands. When fired, its 500,000 pounds of thrust pulls the capsule to supersonic escape speed in two seconds. Lauri Hansen, the systems engineering and integration chief for Constellation at Johnson, recently told Aviation Week how tough it is for any spaceship builder to develop such systems. That’s where she now sees her work bearing fruit: “When I think about what our legacy would be, probably the biggest single thing we could place on the table is an abort capability,” she told AvWeek reporter Marc Carreau. The system is already being managed by private contractors: Orbital Sciences Corp. is the integrator for the system, and Alliant Techsystems and Aerojet supplied the motors. Funding additional tests and any special interface hardware for different commercial vehicles would be straightforward and relatively inexpensive. [B]Tougher yet lighter materials[/B] New technologies for reliable and durable heat shields are also just around the corner. The super-secret military spaceplane known as the X-37B will, among other space tasks not disclosed, prove out an entirely new heat shield that will be shared with NASA — and through NASA with all the commercial space taxi builders. The materials are tougher yet lighter, making them ideal for reusable commercial spacecraft. Air & Space magazine recently described these materials. First, there are silica tiles impregnated with the newest version of “Toughened Uni-Piece Fibrous Insulation” (TUFI), a material already introduced on shuttle flights. This material is resistant to impact and prevents any cracks from spreading further. The magazine said the leading edge of the X-37B's wings have come in for special treatment. Damage to the wing leading edge during launch is thought to have been what caused the shuttle Columbia's catastrophic breakup in 2003. For this region, the X-37B uses “Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-Resistant Composite” (TUFROC, or "tough rock"). It was developed at NASA's Ames Research Center in California to resist the kind of damage suffered by the older reinforced carbon panel panels of the shuttle. Through a combination of on-hand NASA technology, scrubbing of superfluous systems, and ingenious design with thorough testing, the task of building space taxis seems well within the reach of several different design teams, especially those who hire experienced NASA engineers who are seeking new challenges. [B]Final piece of ‘space baggage’[/B] There’s probably one more piece of mental "space baggage" that, if disposed of, could make the future space taxis even more affordable. There should be no compromise when it comes to reducing the risk of crew injury or death. But the risks of mission failure should most definitely be re-evaluated under these new circumstances. Failure may sometimes be an option. It’s a truism that the last few percentage points of mission reliability costs as much as the first big chunk. A 98 percent reliable system probably would cost twice what a 95 percent system costs, and 99.5 percent reliability probably costs twice as much as 98 percent. When national prestige rather than cost is the leading driver, any expense is justified to avoid world embarrassment. But for a space taxi fleet, or for several independent fleets, supporting a high annual launch rate, the "design driver" is very different. Certainly the aim is to deliver the highest possible crew safety. But the overall system — and the public’s perception of it — should be able to tolerate a small number of mission aborts. These could occur at launch or during rendezvous, or involve an off-course landing or unintentional splashdown. These missions could be rapidly reflown, and the cost of the makeup flights would easily be absorbed by the lower cost of every other flight. In fact, if there are no mission aborts after several years of operations, the lesson might be that too much was being spent on reliability. That might be the only way that a future space taxi fleet could fall short of the promise of wide-front breakthroughs in human orbital access. [I]NBC News space analyst James Oberg spent 22 years at NASA's Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer. © 2010 MSNBC Interactive. Reprints[/I][/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//[/url] :science:
Space travel is cool beans. and I mean like beans chilled to a few degrees above absolute zero cool
Cool beans, and by cool beans I mean break the laws of thermodynamics cool.
- Spacewalking? No need, so no airlock, either. At most, the crew would wear in-cabin pressure suits such as those used on Soyuz missions. [b]WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT?[/b]
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;21511197]- Spacewalking? No need, so no airlock, either. At most, the crew would wear in-cabin pressure suits such as those used on Soyuz missions. [b]WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT?[/b][/QUOTE] That without an airlock people can't get in? ... Our out. Dun dun dun.
I don't consider it fun unless I get to jump from the moon back onto Earth, into Osama Bin Laden's cave with a gun and a news crew sponsored by Red Bull.
No windows? Lots of passengers would want to look out into space I'm sure. Is it too much to ask for one window outside of the pilot's deck?
Corporations are the future of space travel.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;21511330]Corporations are the future of space travel.[/QUOTE] They'll never be able to get as much money as the government funded space agencies. [editline]09:33PM[/editline] Loads of cool ideas, but I think the only thing they'll be able to achieve is more "earth close" stuff. Such as tourism, and maybe far far into the future, trips to moon.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;21511365]They'll never be able to get as much money as the government funded space agencies.[/QUOTE] The Virgin Group is a fairly successful corporation, they have some money. Hell I think they could even build a Lofstrom loop. The problem with that is that it would be so wide they would have to buy constructions permits in nine states.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21511396]The Virgin Group is a fairly successful corporation, they have some money. Hell I think they could even build a Lofstrom loop. The problem with that is that it would be so wide they would have to buy constructions permits in nine states.[/QUOTE] i think a space elevator is cooler than a lofstrom loop, and it wouldn't be quite as wide as a l.loop
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21511396]The Virgin Group is a fairly successful corporation, they have some money. Hell I think they could even build a Lofstrom loop. The problem with that is that it would be so wide they would have to buy constructions permits in nine states.[/QUOTE] Yes I don't doubt the private space agencies. So far it seems like they are the ones looking forward in expanding towards space. Although regarding cost, take the Apollo project as an example. The final cost of the whole thing was $170 billion. That's quite a large sum of money.
Everyone could make their own spacecraft, money is the biggest problem and doubt you know how to build one when your short on money and it would not be much cheaper either.
Space elevators solve the whole taxi problem in the first place. You don't need a surface-to-orbit shuttle if there is already an elevator. And you could have the elevator's counter-weight be a huge launch platform/space station, so you could just assemble and launch vehicles straight from there.
NASA is butthurt cause their budget was cut
They better base these off nasa spacecraft, their current ideas just suck.
[QUOTE=squeaky024;21513002]They better base these off nasa spacecraft, their current ideas just suck.[/QUOTE] i want loud, big, rockets
[QUOTE=Swebonny;21511365]They'll never be able to get as much money as the government funded space agencies.[/QUOTE] Mercury Program cost $384 million, and that's with the large backing of a zealously enthusiastic populace, optimistic government, and a strong desire to beat the red bastards in space. Spaceship One only cost $25 million, from development to launch, and that's entirely out of the pocket of one man. Don't get me wrong, space agencies are the ones that lay down the foundation and framework, but it is the corporations that fill in the shell. [editline]07:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=squeaky024;21513002]They better base these off nasa spacecraft, their current ideas just suck.[/QUOTE] Because launching someone sitting on tons of extremely flammable fuel, strapped into what amounts to a glorified ICBM is better.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;21513620]Mercury Program cost $384 million, and that's with the large backing of a zealously enthusiastic populace, optimistic government, and a strong desire to beat the red bastards in space. Spaceship One only cost $25 million, from development to launch, and that's entirely out of the pocket of one man. Don't get me wrong, space agencies are the ones that lay down the foundation and framework, but it is the corporations that fill in the shell. [editline]07:32PM[/editline] Because launching someone sitting on tons of extremely flammable fuel, strapped into what amounts to a glorified ICBM is better.[/QUOTE] Not to mention 384 million isn't unfeasible if a group of millionaires group together. Hell, the Georgia aquarium was about 300 million dollars, of which 250 million was donated by one person, the owner of Home Depot.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;21513620]Mercury Program cost $384 million, and that's with the large backing of a zealously enthusiastic populace, optimistic government, and a strong desire to beat the red bastards in space. Spaceship One only cost $25 million, from development to launch, and that's entirely out of the pocket of one man. Don't get me wrong, space agencies are the ones that lay down the foundation and framework, but it is the corporations that fill in the shell. [editline]07:32PM[/editline] Because launching someone sitting on tons of extremely flammable fuel, strapped into what amounts to a glorified ICBM is better.[/QUOTE] There also the little matter of having accesses to half a century of technological advancement.
Man, by the time space travel for civilians becomes commonplace I'll be all old and shit. Also before I go into space they need to figure out some artificial gravity shit.
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21513079]i want loud, big, rockets[/QUOTE] I like the ground vibrations when they launch, so epic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.